Yet Another Cycling Forum
Random Musings => Gallery => Phototalk => Topic started by: Sergeant Pluck on 28 January, 2018, 12:10:20 pm
-
Straight outta Stoke Newington:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/28/does-reflex-slr-camera-herald-35mm-film-renaissance
-
Sold as a camera body with lenses available separately, the Reflex resembles a traditional 35mm SLR camera of the 1960s or 70s but has a removable film back, making it possible to rapidly swap films in daylight without having to wait until the end of the roll. The camera body will have the option of five lens mounts.
“For several months I worked through every single camera design out there,” says the driving force behind the Reflex, Belgian-born filmmaker and photographer Laurence Von Thomas, 39. “I wanted to ensure that there was an alternative to using second-hand cameras if you want to use 35mm film.
Keeping this European camera affordable for the twenties and thirties target age-group has meant that it has to be manufactured in China. The Reflex will be available from the autumn, priced between £350 and £399.
Haha, made in China and yet it's "European".
There must be millions of old film cameras out there, now nearly worthless, why would anyone pay ten times as much for a new camera? But anyway, the cost of film and processing would be a much bigger cost than the few hundred for a new camera.
-
I’m not suggesting it is a good buy - it’s just interesting to read that more people are returning to film. I’m wondering about the swappable back - was it really that hard to change a roll?
-
I’m not suggesting it is a good buy - it’s just interesting to read that more people are returning to film. I’m wondering about the swappable back - was it really that hard to change a roll?
My understanding was the swappable back allows you to swap mid-rolls and then back again, to change film stock without wasting the unused film. Sort of thing that would traditionally have been done by using more than one body, back when film cameras were really expensive, but can now be achieved with an expensive new camera, now that they're available for peanuts.
-
The 'hot swappable' back is a fabulous idea.
I was hoping some genius would come up with a replacement back for either of my slr cameras replacing the film with a digital back. I suppose that it's still technically possible and I'd love my old Canon AE-1 as a digital but I guess that is never going to happen.
-
I’m wondering about the swappable back - was it really that hard to change a roll?
Awkward but not that hard, film can be wound back into the canister and out again, there's couple of pitfalls (Not least forgetting how many exposures are on it) and a bit of wastage if you want to be sure there's no overlap. You wouldn't want to be going back and forth like you could with a camera back, but it used to be common practice.
-
I still have my Minolta XG-1 (and motordrive). Must try and buy some film for it and commence snapping.
-
A fairly niche market but one that very much exists, as a film user though, I'll be sticking with my current crop of cameras and spend my cash on film.
-
My understanding was the swappable back allows you to swap mid-rolls and then back again
You are right of course.
-
I have to say, if I wanted to spend 400 quid on a 35mm body, I'd be more inclined to pick up another OM4ti.
(Actually, having just looked on ebay, for that money I'd bide my time a little and get two.)
-
I'd just look in the cupboard for the F2 or the FE2. Both excellent cameras.
-
WTF???
Just spend £50 on a proven classic on Ebay*
*If you MUST use film**
** Don't bother.
-
Back in the days, when I was shooting film, I also rolled & developed my own, so the film cost was negligible..so if you had to change film mid-roll, you just rolled it up and developed it.
Like everyone else, I did play with trying to get overlapping frames and double-exposing..
-
The first new single lens reflex film camera to be designed since the early 1990s
Well, that's bollocks on several levels, I would suggest.
-
And why didn't they go for a common mount like the Pentax K, OM, or even M42?
-
I’m wondering about the swappable back - was it really that hard to change a roll?
Awkward but not that hard, film can be wound back into the canister and out again, there's couple of pitfalls (Not least forgetting how many exposures are on it) and a bit of wastage if you want to be sure there's no overlap. You wouldn't want to be going back and forth like you could with a camera back, but it used to be common practice.
My Eos 100 always put the photos in exactly the same place, so note frame number, press rewind, write frame number on film. Then later, use gadget to extract film leader, load, set 1/2000 f32, manual focus leave lens cap on and advance back to number.
Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk
-
Hipster twattery.
-
Hipster twattery.
:-)
I didn't like to say.
Anyway, forget this nonsense. I was in "Clock Tower Cameras" in Brighton at the weekend. It's an Aladdin's cave of used film cameras I used to drool over in my Yoof. They even had a Mamiya C220!!! Gorgeous.
I almost bought an Olympus Trip 35....and then remembered....it uses film...so didn't.
-
I almost bought an Olympus Trip 35....and then remembered....it uses film...so didn't.
I've just put one of them, and the Soviet equivalent Fed50, in my suitcase for next week's excursion. (And a Praktica MTL5)
The sensors on a lot of Trip 35s have gone making them much less useful.
Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using Tapatalk
-
I don't understand why people (re)turning to film photography are choosing 35mm. It was always a terribly compromised format that was so popular only because it was small and portable. If you want small and portable nowadays there's a phone camera in your pocket.
If you want the best film experience, why not go medium format? It was prohibitive pre-digital because of the costs, but now, like 35mm, there's a glut of used quality gear about, Bronicas, Mamiyas, Yashicas, Rolleis, etc., going for a tiny fraction of what they cost new. Even Hasselblads are only expensive nowadays, compared to eye-wateringly unobtainable 20 years ago.
Medium format offers much better image quality than 35mm in all regards. There's still plenty of good choices of film available. It's easier and more fun to develop, print and scan. If you're doing all your own darkroom work, MF negs are a joy to work with compared to 35mm (and used darkroom gear costs next to nothing these days). Even MF scans are more croppable in post due to the much larger file sizes from much bigger negatives.
-
I don't understand why people (re)turning to film photography are choosing 35mm. It was always a terribly compromised format that was so popular only because it was small and portable. If you want small and portable nowadays there's a phone camera in your pocket.
If you want the best film experience, why not go medium format? It was prohibitive pre-digital because of the costs, but now, like 35mm, there's a glut of used quality gear about, Bronicas, Mamiyas, Yashicas, Rolleis, etc., going for a tiny fraction of what they cost new. Even Hasselblads are only expensive nowadays, compared to eye-wateringly unobtainable 20 years ago.
Medium format offers much better image quality than 35mm in all regards. There's still plenty of good choices of film available. It's easier and more fun to develop, print and scan. If you're doing all your own darkroom work, MF negs are a joy to work with compared to 35mm (and used darkroom gear costs next to nothing these days). Even MF scans are more croppable in post due to the much larger file sizes from much bigger negatives.
Although I'm not returning to film as I've always used it, the simple answer is that I enjoy using my 35mm cameras, they are far lighter and more portable than MF and the quality is fine for my uses. It's also cheaper, bigger range of lenses, more pictures per roll, MF scanners aren't cheap etc....
-
Medium format offers much better image quality than 35mm in all regards. There's still plenty of good choices of film available. It's easier and more fun to develop, print and scan. If you're doing all your own darkroom work, MF negs are a joy to work with compared to 35mm (and used darkroom gear costs next to nothing these days). Even MF scans are more croppable in post due to the much larger file sizes from much bigger negatives.
I'm not going back to film (and don't really understand why people do) but, if I did, I would do what you suggest. I still crave a Mamiya C330...and I can afford one now :-)
-
I only do film on large format.. Been challenged to design a laser cuttable LF camera (5x4) - simple box design that all the necessary gubbins can pack inside.